Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 11 To July 17, 2022

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 294 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 307 NOMINAL INDEX O. Paneerselvam v. AIADMK and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 294 S.Ramesh v. Union of India and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 295 P.Velumani v. The State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 296 C Sivakumar v. A Srividhya, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 297 V.S.J.Dinakaran v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 298 Union Bank of India Officers Association and another v. Union Bank of India and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 299 K.Lal Bhagadhur Sasthri v. The Director of Medical Education and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 300 E.Seshan v. Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 301 C Joseph Vijay v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 302 Kunnamkulam Paper Mills Ltd. and ors v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 303 Dr.Sreejith V.Ravi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 304 B.C. Mohankumar Versus Superintendent of Central Goods & Service Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 305 Bava Bahrudeen @ Mannai Bava v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 306 Asan Basha @ Ashan Batcha and another v. The State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 307 REPORTS 1. Madras High Court Refuses To Stall AIADMK General Council Meeting, Rejects Plea By Ex-CM Paneerselvam Case Title: O. Paneerselvam v. AIADMK and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 294 The Madras High Court on Monday refused to interfere with the general council meeting of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK). Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that out of the 2665 members of the General Assembly, more than 2100 members have expressed desire to conduct the meeting. "In a democratic set up, the will of the majority will prevail", the court remarked. The court also reprimanded the manner in which the petitioner was repeatedly approaching the court instead of participating in the meeting and putting forward his ideas. While allowing the conduct of the meeting according to law, the court also held that if anyone was aggrieved that the meeting was not conducted in accordance with law, they could move with a Civil Suit to that effect. 2. Extradition Act | Magistrate Holding Enquiry Need Not Be The One Within Whose Jurisdiction The Fugitive Was Apprehended: Madras High Court Case Title: S.Ramesh v. Union of India and another Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 295 The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the Central Government has the liberty under the Extradition Act to choose any Magistrate to deal with the fugitive criminals. Such Magistrate need not be the one within whose jurisdiction the fugitive was apprehended. Justice R Vijayakumar relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Rosiline George Vs. Union of India and others where the court had observed as under: It is obvious from the plain language of Section 5 of the Act that the Central Government can direct any Magistrate to hold inquiry provided the said Magistrate would have had jurisdiction to inquire into the offence if it had been an offence committed within the local limits of his jurisdiction.....The Act, being a special provision dealing with the extradition of fugitive criminals, shall exclude from application the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In any case, Section 5 of the said code gives overriding effect to the special jurisdiction created under any special or local laws. Sections 177, 188 and 190 of the Code have no application to the proceedings under the Act. 3. Madras High Court Deprecates Trend Of Implicating Advocates As Accused For Offences Alleged Against Their Clients Case Title: P.Velumani v. The State and another Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 296 While quashing proceeding against an advocate for trespass, the Madras High Court observed that there is a recent trend where the advocates are implicated along with their clients for offences alleged to be committed by the clients with an object of achieving the intended result quickly. Such practice should be condemned and deprecated. Justice Murali Shankar of the Madurai Bench observed: "A new trend has been emerging in implicating the Advocates as accused along with their clients with ulterior motive of achieving the intended result quickly or immediately. The practice of implicating the Advocates along with their clients for the offences alleged to have committed by the clients is to be condemned and such a practice is to be deprecated." 4. Wife Suspecting Husband's Character, Levelling Allegations Of Extra Marital Affair Before His Colleagues Amounts To Cruelty: Madras High Court Case Title: C Sivakumar v. A Srividhya Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 297 While granting the relief of divorce to a husband on the...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 11 To July 17, 2022

Upasana Sajeev

Tags